outline

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the description's main added value is the 'in order' ordering guarantee, which is not derivable from the schema. It says nothing about pagination behavior, the ~8,000-byte cap, error conditions, or how 'address' values are formed, so behavioral coverage beyond annotations is thin.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tight fragment with zero filler, and the returned fields are front-loaded. It is arguably under-specified rather than padded, but as a matter of size and structure it is efficient and readable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description carries some burden for explaining the return payload, and it does name the returned fields. But for a five-parameter, paginated tool with a stories mode, it omits the pagination/cursor continuation flow, the byte cap, and the address format, leaving real gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% (limit, cursor, stories, max_level are all documented in-schema, including the stories prefix format). The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies; the mention of 'level' loosely hints at max_level but adds no new semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The fragment identifies the resource (document headings) and the fields returned (level, style, address), which lets an agent infer this is the outline/heading-extraction tool rather than a paragraph or section lister. However, it never states an action verb ('list', 'extract', 'return'), so the purpose is implied rather than asserted, and there is no explicit contrast with siblings like paragraphs_list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as paragraphs_list or toc_insert. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and the noun phrase describing the output.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.